Wednesday, January 10, 2007

On Not Declaring Victory

Today brings a curious combination of elation and letdown. Realize, we at TeachTheFacts.org have been fighting for more than two years -- we started in December, 2004 -- to see that a decent sex-ed curriculum is implemented in Montgomery County. We battled through the first round, which ended with the legal settlement that threw out the proposed curriculum and citizens advisory committee, and we battled through the second one: formation of a new committee and development of a new curriculum.

Yesterday the school board unanimously adopted the new curriculum. Though there are coalitions on the board, representatives of both parties and diverse philosophies, backgrounds, and special concerns, all the members raised their hands when the vote came. They knew that a lawsuit is likely, but they knew the world was watching, they knew their community was counting on them, they knew what their consciences demanded, and they did the right thing.

Did we make any difference? I don't know. I tend to be fatalistic about these kinds of things, but this time, watching how this all went down, I'd have to say yes, we made a difference.

We defined our mission early on as "supporting the school board." And basically, that's what we've done, even though I know there are times they wished we wouldn't. Sometimes supporting means cajoling them, scolding them, pushing them to do something they'd really rather not have to deal with. Call it tough-love, I don't know, but I think it made a difference for them to know that this organization was following the case every single day, commenting on the progress of the new curriculum, getting involved whenever the task started to veer off the path or when it needed a little push.

And again, I do have to thank our school board for having the fortitude to vote for this, even when they knew it'd put them back in court.

There are two main reasons not to declare victory at this time. First of all is the trivial reason: it's almost certain that the CRC is going to sue. We have not yet come to the page that says: The End. Of course, this time the school district got some high-priced lawyers involved from the start. The curriculum was developed by a team of pediatricians and educators, but nobody saw a lick of it until the lawyers had gone over it. You can bet, everything on those documents has passed through the fine-toothed comb.

The bad guys can complain about "viewpoint neutrality," but their lawyers know perfectly well that doesn't apply in the classroom. The precedents are out there for everyone to see -- the concept gives them hope, because the judge mentioned it last time, but it won't hold up in court. Presenting the scientifically and medically accurate viewpoints is enough, without dragging in the "ex-gay" hoax, or a bunch of stuff to make gay people sound dirty or creepy. Oh, and the idea that students' First Amendment rights are violated because they don't get to express their bigoted views in the classrroom, well, that's silly. Students have never had the right to say anything they wanted in a classroom. It's crazy to think the courts are going to support the idea that the classroom is the place for some punk kids to express their personal opinions. Can you imagine?

The other reason not to declare victory is that the curriculum is not quite complete. As far as sexual orientation and gender identity goes, it gives an objective and fair picture, even sympathetic. But the school district shied away from making the real point, which is that the scientists and the doctors don't see homosexuality as a sickness, or as a choice, and they don't think there is any problem with gay people having families and living normal lives. Most of us in TeachTheFacts, and most of the members of the citizens committee, really feel that this fact should be explicitly included in the course materials. Tell students that the AMA, the APA, the AAP all have said, for the record, that being gay is not a sickness, sexual orientation is not something you choose. Without knowing the source, this must sounds like another opinion, and you know what they say about opinions ... ending with "and they all stink." It's not just an opinion like yours or mine, these are statements reflecting years of research and debate among the most highly-qualified experts in science and medicine.

In the long run, it might be just as well to wait and see how pilot testing goes. But the fact is, the medical community has made it very clear that they can't find anything wrong with being gay in itself; gay people have the same problems the rest of us do. And knowing that could mean life or death for some worried kid.

So ... at this point it's fine to feel a little bit elated: MCPS did just vote, unanimously no less, to start testing a really good curriculum. The nuts have screamed and yelled, and the TV-news zombies were attracted to the noise, but in the long run that's all it was: noise. School district staff, the doctors, the lawyers, the citizens committee, the school board, all focused closely on the actual topic, which was not the noise but the education of our county's adolescents, and yesterday we passed an important milestone.

And it's OK to feel a little letdown. You know that, as much effort as has been put into this, the whiners are still trying like crazy to tear it down, trying to undermine it. Their defining characteristic is that they can't accept when they lose a fair vote. So you never get to rest. You're always going to have to pick up your mace and your broadsword and wade back into the carnage.

36 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Today brings a curious combination of elation and letdown."

Don't see what basis you have for elation. Did anyone doubt that the Board was going to approve the curriculum devised by their stacked committee?

After two years, you now have a curriculum that has dropped the dubious citing of science to support the gay agenda. CRC won on that point.

Of course, the new proposed curriculum is objectionable in other ways. It basically promotes the idea that kids will be better off if they "come out" as homosexuals. Not too long ago, even TTFers on this site conceded this is not a good idea for teens.

The public will surely agree.

Better yet, the objectional material is right up front and not hidden in the resource material so the Board won't be able to play that shell game this time out. CRC should have a much easier time raising public awareness. All they need is one parent at each school to give them a list of PTA members and send out an informative mailing. Of course, the PTA could make it much easier by holding open forums on the curriculum but they seem to be controlled by the NEA.

Anyway, time will show that the radical left badly overplayed their hand this time.

January 11, 2007 10:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You're always going to have to pick up your mace and your broadsword and wade back into the carnage."

A good metaphor for TTF's idea of discussion. Personal attacks instead of relevant ideas.

January 11, 2007 10:07 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Anon said, "All they need is one parent at each school to give them a list of PTA members and send out an informative mailing."

I hope they provide postage paid postcards addressed to the BOE like "Parents Against X-Rated Curriculum in MCPS" did last year, so the parents of MCPS students at the pilot schools can tell the BOE just exactly how much they support ALL students regardless of sexual orientation.

January 11, 2007 11:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the real problem is that we have a small group of sexual deviants who whant to introduce are children to there perverted life style.

January 11, 2007 1:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh yeah. Closet dwellers sure would like to force LGBT kids to join them in their "perverted life style" pretending to be what they are not. They think people should suffer in this life to earn rewards in the afterlife just like the 9/11 attackers thought they were earning their promised afterlife virgins.

January 11, 2007 3:30 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

Anon- you speak of sexual deviancy and children- people often accuse others to protect themselves. As I said before, you are pathetic.

January 11, 2007 3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

and rear that is the perverts defence. spoken like a true pervert what is wrong HIV test was positive?

January 11, 2007 3:58 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I'm about to start deleting your idiocy if you keep on like this.

JimK

January 11, 2007 4:08 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "Of course, the new proposed curriculum is objectionable in other ways. It basically promotes the idea that kids will be better off if they "come out" as homosexuals. Not too long ago, even TTFers on this site conceded this is not a good idea for teens.".

We don't force straight kids to hide their heterosexuality, we shouldn't be forcing gay kids to hide their gayness either.

Andrear, you're right about anonymous - he's using anti-gay bigotry to suppress and hide his own gayness, he's admitted as much.

January 11, 2007 5:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We don't force straight kids to hide their heterosexuality, we shouldn't be forcing gay kids to hide their gayness either."

This isn't about forcing anyone to do anything. The problem is that the new curriculum tries to fool kids into thinking that the "coming out" experience is a joyful one.

"Andrear, you're right about anonymous - he's using anti-gay bigotry to suppress and hide his own gayness, he's admitted as much."

Please keep developing this line of thought. Many of the things you've said will be very useful to pro-family groups in the near future.

January 12, 2007 10:25 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Dobson is hardly pro-family. This nonsensical labelling needs to stop.

January 12, 2007 10:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Dobson is hardly pro-family. This nonsensical labelling needs to stop."

It's called self-identifying. TTF doesn't want to teach the facts, after all.

January 12, 2007 11:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The problem is that the new curriculum tries to fool kids into thinking that the "coming out" experience is a joyful one."

How does it do that? Give us the quote from the new curriculm that "tries to fool kids into thinking that the "coming out experience" is a joyful one."

January 12, 2007 2:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Randi Schimnosky said...
Anonymous said "Of course, the new proposed curriculum is objectionable in other ways. It basically promotes the idea that kids will be better off if they "come out" as homosexuals. Not too long ago, even TTFers on this site conceded this is not a good idea for teens.".

We don't force straight kids to hide their heterosexuality, we shouldn't be forcing gay kids to hide their gayness either.

Andrear, you're right about anonymous - he's using anti-gay bigotry to suppress and hide his own gayness, he's admitted as much.

Randi and Andrear you are lovers, are you not? So Randi are you sure that Andrear is not glazing other donuts? Better get tested.

I have always found it amusing that when a homosexual hates someone they always accuse them of being gay. It must be part of your mental disorder malignant narcissism.
I would say more but we know that JIMK will just delete the post so you all don’t get upset and start to cry to him “ the anon is mean we hates it make him stop.”

January 12, 2007 3:18 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anonymous, don't you have something to do? Yes, I am going to start deleting your ridiculous posts.

It's as if your side thinks they can win the debate just by being so offensive that everyone gives up trying to reason with you, and goes away.

Unfortunately, we can't walk away and let you have your way. But I can start deleting your nonsense.

JimK

January 12, 2007 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 12, 2007 3:42 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at January 12, 2007 10:25 AM said "This isn't about forcing anyone to do anything. The problem is that the new curriculum tries to fool kids into thinking that the "coming out" experience is a joyful one."

The natural state of children is freedom to express their attractions as they appear. As gay children are usually verbally if not physically assaulted and rejected for expressing same sex attractions they ARE forced to hide who they are and it should not be that way. Kids shouln't have to "come out" they should never be "in" the closet in the first place. Straight kids don't have to come out, gay kids deserve the same freedom to express their attractions freely.

That gay kids are punished for doing so is a wrong of societies that needs to be addressed. The way we address it is by letting gay kids safely express who they are. We can't reward the wrongs of those who want to force gay kids into the closet by allowing them to succeed in doing so.

January 12, 2007 6:39 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "I have always found it amusing that when a homosexual hates someone they always accuse them of being gay. It must be part of your mental disorder malignant narcissism.".

That's because we speak from experience. I was an antigay bigot myself at one time. I did it to try and suppress my same sex attractions and its obvious you're doing the same thing. You've more or less admitted that anyway. There's nothing worse than a self-loathing gay and that's you.

January 12, 2007 6:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I was an antigay bigot myself at one time. I did it to try and suppress my same sex attractions"

Randi, I assume whatever this guy said to you was misunderstood. He seems more demented than gay.

As for you, I heard your story before and, honestly, I think your problem was not "suppressed anger" as you said before or that you were trying to "suppress my same sex attraction". You did things like trying to beat up gays for one reason alone: you wanted to make damn sure no one thought you were gay.

I think this is the case with alot of these guys who over-react to homosexuality. They're afraid if they aren't seen as completely hostile to gays, someone might think they're gay. It's sad that some people are that insecure.

Still, this reaction is seen by both closeted gays and, also, just regular insecure heterosexuals. It doesn't necessarily mean they're gay.

January 12, 2007 9:19 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

...regular insecure heterosexuals...

You mean, regular guys like yourself, who are "straight" but not entirely one hundred percent sure of it?

PB

January 12, 2007 10:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You mean, regular guys like yourself, who are "straight" but not entirely one hundred percent sure of it?"

I mean people who carouse around with violent thoughts like Randi once had.

And I think some of them are 100% hetero but worried about what others think. Doesn't mean they are gay, just that they worry about their reputation.

I've read some insecure ramblings (though not violent) from some professed heteros who are TTFers. They say some ridiculous things because they worry that people will assume they are gay because of their involvement here.

Many people, it appears, worry about appearances.

January 12, 2007 10:46 PM  
Anonymous PasserBy said...

"worried about what others think"
"worry that people will assume they are gay"
"worry about appearances"

Why would anybody care if somebody thought they were gay? I can't imagine why it would matter.

PB

January 12, 2007 11:44 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I run into guys like that a lot. It's enough to make you wonder if the prevalence of male homosexuality isn't a lot higher than 5%.

January 13, 2007 8:24 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "As for you, I heard your story before and, honestly, I think your problem was not "suppressed anger" as you said before or that you were trying to "suppress my same sex attraction". You did things like trying to beat up gays for one reason alone: you wanted to make damn sure no one thought you were gay.".

I never said anything about suppressed anger, in fact it was just the opposite. The more I got myself worked up with anger at gays the easier it was to keep my attention on the anger and off my own attraction to men. Anger is great at blinding people. The anger helped me to deny my own attractions - obviously I couldn't be gay when I hated gays I convinced myself. This worked well temporarily but ultimately not having similarly minded anti-gay friends I couldn't sustain the anger and diversion of self-awarenss.

Anonymous said "I think this is the case with alot of these guys who over-react to homosexuality. They're afraid if they aren't seen as completely hostile to gays, someone might think they're gay. It's sad that some people are that insecure.".

They're that insecure because they have same sex attractions themselves. If they were completely straight it would never cross their minds that someone might think they are gay. Their default assumption would be that everyone will think they're straight just like they themselves think of themselves. People expect others to think as they do. We project our beliefs on others. They're afraid others will think they're gay because deep down inside in a place they don't want to go, they realize they're turned on by men.

I was afraid of people thinking I was gay because I was afraid of being gay, of wanting to be a woman and what I felt would be the denigration that goes along with it. That's why it occurred to me that people might think I liked men, because I did.

If you don't believe me consider this:

Research by US psychologists suggests that 80 percent of men who are homophobic have secret homosexual feelings. This finding lends scientific support to the long-standing speculation that those who shout the loudest against homosexuality have something to hide.

The research results were published in the prestigious Journal of Abnormal Psychology, with the backing of the American Psychological Association.

In tests conducted by Prof. Henry E Adams of the University of Georgia, homophobic men who said they were exclusively heterosexual were shown gay sex videos. Four out of five became sexually aroused by the homoerotic imagery, as recorded by a penile circumference measuring device - a plethysmograph.

January 13, 2007 4:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I run into guys like that a lot. It's enough to make you wonder if the prevalence of male homosexuality isn't a lot higher than 5%."

They are not necessarily gay. That could be what's causing them to worry about their image sometimes but it's not the only thing that might.

Of course, you might think believing that would fortify your point of view but here's a couple of things to consider:

If always true, then there would not only be a lot more gays out there then commonly believed but also a lot more mentally unstable gays. You must admit going around making a big deal about homosexuality when being secretly gay is a sign of some emotional disturbance. This would significantly add to the already high incidence of mental problems noted in gay men.

The other thing is that you always seem to fall into recruitment status when you discuss this. I've heard you and Randi say many times here to anyone they decide they are secretly gay, "come on out, you'll feel much better". This is similar to what's said in the new proposed curriculum. Will teachers start saying something like that to students who seem too anti-gay to them? Why not? It's in the curriculum. After the gay movement has sworn up and down they are not trying to recruit people to their movement, that seems exactly what they are attempting.

January 13, 2007 5:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Randi

You are the sad victim of psychobabble. You really lose me when you say stuff like these guys are secretly attracted to guys down deep but they don't really know it. Oh brother!

I'd have to read up on your penis meter thing (and I don't think I will) but I have a feeling the whole 80% thing has another explanation. I can think of some possibilities.

Your frantic search for company is so desperate.

January 13, 2007 5:39 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "You must admit going around making a big deal about homosexuality when being secretly gay is a sign of some emotional disturbance. This would significantly add to the already high incidence of mental problems noted in gay men."

Not a sign of emotional distubance but of social oppression. If society didn't drill it into people's heads that its wrong to be gay we wouldn't see this internalized homophobia. There is no evidence of any more "mental problems" in gay men than there are in straight men. Dozens of studies since 1957 have proven that gays are indistinguishable from straights in common measures of mental health.

Anonymous said "I've heard you and Randi say many times here to anyone they decide they are secretly gay, "come on out, you'll feel much better".".

I don't believe I've ever said "come out", what I've said is that you'll be much happier once you learn to positively accept your same sex attractions. Whether or not you come out is totally up to you. Its up to us to create a society where people don't feel a need to be in the closet in the first place.

Anonymous said "This is similar to what's said in the new proposed curriculum. Will teachers start saying something like that to students who seem too anti-gay to them? Why not? It's in the curriculum.".

Exactly where is that in the new cirriculum?

Anonymous said "After the gay movement has sworn up and down they are not trying to recruit people to their movement, that seems exactly what they are attempting.".

There's no such thing as a gay "movement", just gay people and a gay minority. The idea that anyone who isn't gay is going to be tempted to try it and convert is laughable. Encouraging victims of internalized homophobia to deal with it in a positive manner isn't recruiting anyone. These people are already gay or bisexual.

Anonymous said "You are the sad victim of psychobabble. You really lose me when you say stuff like these guys are secretly attracted to guys down deep but they don't really know it. Oh brother!".

Oh, deep down inside they really know it all right. I doubt most of these people are completely gay, just bisexual. There's no doubt in my mind that a large percentage of "straight" men have latent attractions to men they want to hide from themselves and others. The study I quoted shows that.

Anonymous said "I'd have to read up on your penis meter thing (and I don't think I will) but I have a feeling the whole 80% thing has another explanation. I can think of some possibilities.

Your frantic search for company is so desperate."

Your frantic avoidance of reality is hilarious. I'm sure your desperate to think of some other explanations but obviously you didn't think of any that are good enough to share. As for myself I have the most wonderful relationship with the sweetest most loving man in the whole world, I'm not in need of any company - I'm just sick of self-loathing anti-gays like you.

January 13, 2007 9:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Randi Schimnosky said...
Anonymous said "I have always found it amusing that when a homosexual hates someone they always accuse them of being gay. It must be part of your mental disorder malignant narcissism.".

That's because we speak from experience. I was an antigay bigot myself at one time. I did it to try and suppress my same sex attractions and it’s obvious you're doing the same thing. You've more or less admitted that anyway. There's nothing worse than a self-loathing gay and that's you.

“It must be part of your mental disorder malignant narcissism.”

Well Randi I guess it is time you realized that most people do not share your experiences the fact that your think that everyone is just like you, with the same back ground and behaviors is an expression of your narcissism. Like I stated, homosexuals are for the most part self-loathing but are also self-absorbed. And you and the others hear on TTF’s side seam the same. You are merely projecting your own narrow experiences and weaknesses on others, and avoiding the question that you have yet to answer and that is, are you positive or negative? +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-?????????

Randi said “There's nothing worse than a gay and that's you. “ Hitler was Gay.

January 14, 2007 2:14 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at January 14, 2007 2:14 AM

Anonymous, the evidence shows 80% of homophobes are sexually aroused by men. You're a homophobe. You've more or less admitted you're gay. You are sexually aroused by men.

There is no evidence that Hitler was gay. There is however plenty of evidence he was a Christian.

January 14, 2007 1:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Randi Schimnosky said...
Anonymous at January 14, 2007 2:14

There is no evidence that Hitler was gay. There is however plenty of evidence he was a Christian.
January 14, 2007 1:44 PM
Are you nuts?
The evidence is overwhelming that Hitler was gay, not just a little gay really really gay his entire inner circle was gay the hole SS was gay the leaders of the Hitler youth something you probably fantasizes about being were gay the Gestapo were gay. And the Queen Hitler was the biggest homosexual of them all. Never Forget. Now back to you. So how is the white blood count?

January 14, 2007 5:05 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous, calm down, you're hysterical. You're obviously indiscriminantly projecting your same sex attractions on others. The idea that all those people were gay is laughable.

By your logic if Hitler couldn't be considered Christian because he didn't verbalize it in sufficient detail then he couldn't be considered gay because not only did he not claim it in detail, he didn't claim it at all (unlike with being a Christian). You can't have it both ways.

As to my white blood cell count, you'd better worry about your own. Its closeted people like you that seek out anonymous sex in order to maintain your anonymity, after all, you are anonymous here.

January 14, 2007 6:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Randi who now a clam it’s a woman trapped in a man’s body is telling others they’re hysterical. Hold on I half to laugh at that one… OK. I’m back. It is socially excepted to clam you’re a Christian Bill The Rapist Clinton clams he is a Christian. But a homosexual especially since they are child molesters is quite another thing. As for being hysterical well there is a huge volume of evidence of Hitler being gay. And most of his staff was gay that is beyond dispute. Any one who has studied the third rich will tell you that.

You still will not tell us your white blood count; you are trying to change the issue, is it because you are not doing so well?

January 15, 2007 2:40 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

By your logic if Hitler couldn't be considered Christian because he didn't verbalize it in sufficient detail then he couldn't be considered gay because not only did he not claim it in detail, he didn't claim it at all (unlike with being a Christian). You can't have it both ways.

Anonymous said "You still will not tell us your white blood count; you are trying to change the issue, is it because you are not doing so well?"

My white cell blood count never was the isssue, the issue was "On Not Declaring Victory", but of course you changed to your favourite subject - gay sex. Is that because you you're gay? Oh, yeah that's right, you already admitted you are.

January 15, 2007 2:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

January 16, 2007 3:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Randi If Hitler was a Christian than he was one that you would have liked.

Hitler records of his private conversations were recorded by his secretary and published in a book called Hitler's Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953).
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity is the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night
"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

21st October, 1941, midday
"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....
"The decisive falsification of Jesus' who he asserts many times was never a Jew doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....
"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery....
"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)

14th December, 1941, midday
"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....
"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner
"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold its demise." (p 278)

January 16, 2007 3:54 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at January 16, 2007 3:54 PM

Anonymous Table Talk is highly questionable hearsay. There is a questionable chain of transmission such that it wouldn't be admissible in a court of law. Not one of the conversations supposedly preserved in the Table-Talk is preserved in any other form such as audio, film, or radio broadcast, and that none of these purported conversations were published during Hitler's lifetime.

Hitler reluctantly allowed Martin Bormann to pick stenographers (Heim, Piker) to record the conversations. It was Bormann's idea to record Hitler's thoughts in the first place. In a facsimile written after the last of Hitler's recorded table talk, Bormann wrote a directive that stated:

"Please keep these notes most carefully, as they will be of very great value in the future. I have now got Heim to make comprehensive notes as a basis for these minutes. Any transcript which is not quite apposite will be re-checked by me." [Trevor-Roper, inset] (bold characters, mine)

"Apposite" means, fitting; suitable; appropriate. Exactly what Bormann means by "re-checked" can only be speculated upon. However, it bears importance here that neither Heim nor Bormann could hardly be in a position to determine what deems apposite, considering Bormann's biased views against Catholicism. Should we take it as simply coincidence that the church denouncements supposedly by Hitler in the Table-Talk parallel the anti-church sentiments of Martin Bormann, but nowhere else?

Martin Bormann served as the instigator, fuel, and reason for the perception of many Christians that Nazism was against Christianity. Many times, quotes attributed to Hitler are actually Bormann's. It is well known that Bormann secretly worked against the Catholic religion behind Hitler's back and without his permission. It has been pointed out that "the fight against the church organizations" were Bormann's pet project. In spite of Bormann's repeated attempts to persuade Hitler to act against the Churches, Hitler insisted that "There has been no official Party announcement, nor will there be one."


There is every reason to believe that these anti-christian statements were by Bormann. He reserved for himself editorial rights over the notes which were taken, and as can be seen in here
http://www.liesexposed.net/nfp/tabletalk/tabletalk.html
he frequently made use of this self-claimed right.

Further evidence that these were not the words of Hiler is their stark opposition to the praise Hitler gave Christianity in the public record, including Mein Kampf, published during Hitler's lifetime, his large number of speeches, preserved on film, audio recordings, and newspaper accounts, the official publications and proclamations of the NSDAP party, and even letters which bear Hitler's signature.

Even within Table Talk those anti-Christian quotes contradict other quotations which were typical of Hitler:

"We don't want to educate anyone in atheism.
An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)."

"It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianityimplanted itself."

Again, contradictorily, not once does Hitler denounce his own Christianity nor does he speak against Jesus. On the contrary, the Table-Talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. But the problems with using Hitler's table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler's apostasy are manyfold:

1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)

2) The Table-Talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.

3) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his Christianity.

4) The Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity.

The contradiction of those anti-Christian statements within this lone document and with all Hitler's other public and private words show that they are not his words. They are edits by the ant-Christian Bormann

January 16, 2007 7:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home